Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (60762)	10/2/2002 6:26:23 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I agree. But I thought I'd have better luck using the Romans.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (60762)	10/3/2002 10:28:12 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Actually, that is quite untrue. Britain did not rule with a heavy hand. In India, it largely left local principalities intact, for example, and rarely interfered with local customs or religious establishments. There was no "virtual enslavement of heathens", for the most part, their lives went on as before, and to the extent that the British changed them, it was mostly for the better, providing schools, hospitals, improved courts, infrastructure (such as roads and railways), investment, and improved standards of living. Natives were made part of the Army and civil service, were admitted to the bar, were licensed to practice medicine, and sometimes amassed fortunes doing business within the imperial framework. The problems with empire were much more subtle and complex than suggested. Indeed, it is almost certainly true that natives were better off under the British than they had been under indigenous elites.......